Jump to content

Talk:About Last Night (2014 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Partial revert

[edit]

HENDAWG229, I am reverting some of your edits to the article as seen here because I do not think they are improvements. Here are my thoughts:

  • The "Starring" field is based on the film poster's billing block, which is an appropriate rule of thumb for inclusion
  • The lead section is supposed to summarize the key points in the article body (and keep in mind that the article will grow, making the summary more desirable)
  • We need to directly attribute quoted statements, especially considering how promotional it sounds
  • While not required, I think it is best to have an introduction to the "Production" section so it can serve as a stand-alone section. In my opinion, readers could easily jump straight to that section and not have the context needed for that section.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, the movie postsr only shows the 4 actors I left as stars of the film. Second, every statement I removed is already stated somewhere else in the article. Third, the synopsis doesn't need quotation or a statement of where it was found, you can refer to the reference for that. In my edit summary I said some clean up, which I did. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HENDAWG229 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@HENDAWG229: The poster shows six people, but it names only four above the title. If you look here, you can see the remaining two names mentioned in the billing block. For the synopsis, we do need to state who per MOS:QUOTE#Attribution. As for information being repeated, see MOS:LEAD. It states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points... The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." Like I said, this summary will be more beneficial when the article body gets longer with more information about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The poster shows six faces but only four people since Hart and Ealy are shown twice. And why state the website of origin for a synopsis and still use a reference? Sound repetitive to me. Like state production notes in the intro when there's a "Production" section in the article stating the same thing. Article needs to be cleaned up to look presentable, I tried. Oh well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HENDAWG229 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, you're right about the poster actually only having four people. I assumed the six names in the billing block were connected to six faces. So I guess it could be the four names above the title or all six names from the billing block. It would depend on how prominent McDonald and Patton are in their roles. As for quoting the synopsis, it is just a matter of stating in prose who is saying it. Is the director saying it? A spokesperson? We cannot have a quoted statement exist in an article with no attribution. As for the repeated information, the lead section is stating key highlights from the production section. The line, "The remake began development under Screen Gems in January 2011, and the director and the ensemble cast were hired in mid-2012," is a 21-word summary of the same information (conveyed in 92 words) in the production section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References to use

[edit]

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

WP:SEEALSO says a "See also" section is to provide "internal links to related Wikipedia articles... links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." The links listed in the "See also" section come from a reference that is cited in the section's lead sentence. In terms of racial relations in the United States, it is typical to list black films because of how uncommon they are in Hollywood. (There's no such thing as listing white films, though -- that is the status quo.) To cite other examples, some films will have "See also" sections linking to List of American films of 2014. I would link to a similar list of black films if it existed instead of multiple films here, but one does not, so they are here and in the footer of the article, following the more important content. These links help readers explore tangentially related topics. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are basically a set with a particular theme and a specific connection to each other rather than links that are merely "tangentially related" to this topic, so classic template material basically. If the links are relevant to this article by virtue of a grouping, then they are relevant to each and every article in the group too and a template could be added unobtrusively to all articles in the set. Another approach would be to simply create a list like the List of horror films of the 1950s and put that in the "see also" section (a solution that would be more consistent in how we deal with other genre and thematic connections. I am not going to ask you to remove the links if you have established an encyclopedic connection between them, but there are better ways of handling this. Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a WP:COATRACK see also section IMO. For films released in 2014 by female directors, should we start to list all the other female directed films in that section too? No problem with a list being created and that list linked in that section instead. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support creating List of African-American films of 2014 if you both think that is doable per the cross-categorization principle under WP:NOTESAL. I don't know if I have the bandwidth to do additional years, though. This "See also" section was not necessarily meant to be the end of how cross-navigation of this grouping could work, but it was based on the current reality where there is only a list of African-American documentary films and not very many sub-categories under Category:African-American films. For what it's worth, "See also" sections are not always minimalistic; intelligent design#See also, while a very different topic, has a great deal of tangential links. Also, I don't find that WP:COATRACK applies since it applies to articles. It's at the end of the article after all the actual content. The spirit of WP:COATRACK would apply whether or not it is a set of films or a link to that set. And lastly, I actually find a list of 2014 films by female directors to be a pretty good idea, truth be told... Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that the "See also" section in this case, is stretching the boundaries of what is "related" material. Just because this film happens to be a remake with mostly black actors, is no reason to add a laundry list of similar films. I too would support creating a list article, and just putting a link to that article in the "See also" section instead. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not stretching any boundaries. Black films are a genre in the sense that they are underrepresented in the film industry. There are plenty of lists of black films of different sorts out there. One of these lists is being used here. I've also found lists of black romantic comedy films and lists of black romantic films, which could also be included here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

Regarding the lead section, here is a breakdown of my issues with the rewrite:

  • It violates WP:LEAD in putting the no-name director and no-name writer in the first sentence because we are supposed to identify the most noteworthy element upfront. That element are the starring actors. It is false to claim that the director and writer must always be in the first sentence. That can be done with the likes of Christopher Nolan, Aaron Sorkin, etc. In this case, the attention on this film was not because of Pink and Headland, so they should be relegated to after the starring actors.
  • While less important, I see little reason to name-drop the producers as well. They are barely mentioned in the article body.
  • Per MOS:PARA, having just one sentence (about the production) is problematic. And why remove mention that the setting is now in Los Angeles when it was in Chicago before? That was a detail highlighted in reliable sources.
  • Regarding critical reception, there is no source for "criticism aimed at its diversion from the source material". Even if some individual critics said that, we cannot WP:SYNTHesize that into an aggregate statement. That is why the previous wording is based on what exists in the article body.
  • Another WP:SYNTH issue is explicitly comparing the film's production budget to how much it grossed. The numbers are not directly comparable. There is prints and advertising (P&A) spent by the studio, and the studio does not pocket all of the revenue either. So the two numbers should be made distinct.
  • Why would you remove the {{nowrap}} template too? It is useful to link the month and the day of the month.
  • Also, it is unnecessary to remove spaces from the citations. It makes no difference in how citations look, and it is detrimental in combiningtextwithnosenseofwheresomethingstartsorends.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:About_Last_Night_(2014_film)&oldid=1197864442"